Re: Austin Lorondeau
ORB File No: 7231
Hearing held on: Monday, March 2, 2026
Place of Hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.81 (1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann
Members: Dr. R. Chandrasena Dr. A. Kerry Mr. E. Siebenmorgen Ms. B. Little (via videoconference)
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Austin Lorondeau Counsel: Mr. W. Glover
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Huber
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated April 15, 2026)
Introduction
1. On September 27, 2017, Mr. Austin Lorondeau was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”), on charges of attempted murder and assault, both contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Lorondeau was most recently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) dated March 20, 2025 (as amended pursuant to an Order dated October 6, 2025) pursuant to which he is ordered discharged subject to several conditions, including that he reside at a particular address, report at least twice monthly to the person in charge or delegate of the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph's Health Care London (“Southwest” or “the Hospital”), submit samples for analysis, refrain from the possession of weapons, and on his consent, receive recommended treatment. Of note, in making this Disposition, the Board removed a previous term requiring Mr. Lorondeau’s abstinence from the non-medical use of alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants.
2. On Monday, March 2, 2026, a panel of the Board convened in person at the Hospital to conduct the annual review of Mr. Lorondeau’s Disposition. The issues for determination were whether Mr. Lorondeau represented a significant threat to the safety of the public within the meaning of s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, ascertaining the necessary and appropriate Disposition having regard to the criteria in s. 672.54 of the Code. Mr. Lorondeau was present and represented throughout the hearing by his counsel, Mr. Glover. A worker at Mr. Lorondeau’s current housing program and a social worker from his Forensic Outreach Team were also among those in attendance.
3. The hearing proceeded on the basis, essentially, of a joint submission. At the outset, counsel for all parties were in agreement that Mr. Lorondeau represented a significant threat to public safety and that the only recommended alteration to the Disposition was a grammatical change to require Mr. Lorondeau to advise the Hospital “within” 24 hours of a change of his telephone number (in substitution for “in advance” of such a change). The parties maintained their positions at the conclusion of the evidence.
4. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated January 27, 2026 and the oral evidence of Dr. Arun Prakash, Mr. Lorondeau’s attending psychiatrist.
5. For the following Reasons, the panel concluded that Mr. Lorondeau continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. The necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of the Conditional Discharge in accordance with most of its existing terms with the minor variation referred to in para. 3 above. The panel decided to remove the prohibition on the possession of firearms and other weapons as the evidence did not support its continuation.
The Index Offences
6. Mr. Lorondeau is a young man, currently 29 years of age. The index offences occurred when he was 20 years old, on February 12, 2017. While he had no documented psychiatric history prior to the offences, information from his mother indicated that his behaviour for approximately a week beforehand was different. He became withdrawn to his room, talked about “Gods” and was “yelling” at people online with whom he was playing computer games.
7. On February 11, 2017, Mr. Lorondeau reportedly “ruined” the kitchen at the home where he lived with his mother, stepfather and a brother. He then went to a horse farm where he threatened a worker with a pitchfork. He was taken to the Leamington Hospital where he continued acting irrationally and spoke about mystical Gods. He was placed on a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act. A screening test returned a positive result for THC. Mr. Lorondeau was then taken to the psychiatric unit at the Windsor Regional Hospital, where the index offences took place.
8. As a nurse approached Mr. Lorondeau to give him medication, he slapped her across her face with his right hand, knocking off her glasses. The force of the slap caused her to drop the medication and she attempted to press her panic alarm. However, Mr. Lorondeau grabbed her by the throat and started to choke her. She was able to call for help and other hospital staff came to her aid. They pulled Mr. Lorondeau off of her and restrained him until police arrived. The nurse reported that she felt her airway being restricted during the attack and felt that she was going to lose consciousness.
9. Mr. Lorondeau continued to struggle after police arrived. It took three officers and a hospital security guard to subdue him. He was seen by a doctor in the psychiatric intensive care unit and at one point reportedly attempted to kick the doctor and required restraints. He reported to the doctor that he had wanted to kill the nurse.
Background Information
10. Mr. Lorondeau’s background prior to the commission of the index offences and course under the Board’s jurisdiction are set out in the Hospital Report. As this Report is in evidence, the information need not be summarized in detail in these Reasons. An overview, along with necessary details to inform the panel’s “significant threat” determination and approach to the management of Mr. Lorondeau’s risk, is provided below.
11. Mr. Lorondeau is single and has no dependents. He is now diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder (for several previous years, the diagnosis had been schizophrenia) and substance use disorder, now considered to be in sustained remission. He is capable to make treatment decisions and is also financially capable.
12. Mr. Lorondeau was six years of age when his stepfather reportedly took his own life. Mr. Lorondeau’s mother could not cope and left him and his siblings' care to their grandparents. During his developmental years he was reportedly sexually abused by an older female. During his youth, he displayed behavioural issues that included fighting, truancy, challenging teachers, running away from home, vandalism, substance abuse and cruelty to animals.
13. With respect to his substance use, Mr. Lorondeau reported that he began using cannabis at the age of 14. As his use increased, he began to experience paranoia and auditory hallucinations. He also reported trying magic mushrooms and ecstasy on one occasion. He reportedly used crystal methamphetamine, including on the day of his arrest, and experienced hallucinations involving scary clowns and hearing screaming. In addition, he reportedly drank excessively for about a week leading up to the index offence. However, he denied having previously abused alcohol.
14. Mr. Lorondeau had no record of criminal convictions prior to the index offences. However, there have been subsequent incidents of violent conduct. While in pre-trial detention in March of 2017, he punched a fellow inmate in the face. In May of 2018, while at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care awaiting transfer to the Southwest Centre, he entered a co-patient’s room and punched that patient as he slept. Later, in July of 2018, he assaulted a peer on his unit at Southwest Centre. The Hospital Report noted that physical intervention with Mr. Lorondeau was required due to the “intensity” of the assault. Mr. Lorondeau was charged in connection with this incident and was convicted of assault in 2019. Although he was receiving antipsychotic medication, it was reported that he continued to experience intense symptom-related distress, including command hallucinations to harm others. He engaged in the punching of walls as an “outlet” so as not to strike other people.
15. Mr. Lorondeau’s presentation improved significantly with the introduction of clozapine in late December of 2018. Both the positive and negative symptoms of his illness responded to this medication, and he exhibited no aggressive tendencies since becoming stabilized. Mr. Lorondeau himself stated that he felt “great” on clozapine, stating, “It’s a miracle.”
16. Mr. Lorondeau’s mother became terminally ill and subsequently died on March11, 2019. The treatment team reported that Mr. Lorondeau coped with his mother’s passing and the resulting grief reasonably well, without any noted decompensation of his mental condition.
17. Mr. Lorondeau completed the Hospital’s Concurrent Disorders program in 2020 and his participation was noted as active. He experienced decompensation of his mental condition and was actively symptomatic from March through August of 2020, causing some co-patients to feel unsafe around him. His condition improved with adjustment of the dosage of his antipsychotic medication, and by the end of November, was able to begin a transition to the Steel Street Treatment and Rehabilitation Residence. He was formally discharged to the residence on January 21, 2021. Following that initial transition to community living, he worked on gaining employment, financial budgeting and became involved in daily programming at the residence. His mental status remained stable.
18. During the latter portion of his first reporting period while living in the community, Mr. Lorondeau demonstrated more negative symptoms of his illness, including lowered mood and eye contact, less engagement during outreach appointments, and less motivation to follow through with recommendations and work toward his recovery goals. He also relapsed into cannabis use on a few occasions in June of 2021, citing boredom as the reason. Notably, these incidents of use did not destabilize his mental state. Over the next year, he continued to require intensive supervision from his treatment team to both develop structure to his routine and to follow through with a daily schedule. He tended to spend most of his time playing video games and even questioned whether he had become addicted to this activity.
19. Mr. Lorondeau moved into a group home in March of 2023. During the ensuing reporting period, he continued to struggle with amotivation and required support from his outreach team, including for activities of daily living. He obtained part-time employment at a fast food restaurant and over time, began to engage socially with peers at his group home. He tried to both please and help people and struggled with establishing healthy boundaries. He experienced both relational and financial stress and coped with these stressors by smoking, sleeping, going for walks, talking to staff or family members (grandmother, sister, and cousin) and playing video games to escape for a while. He remained abstinent from substances and adherent to his medications, though sometimes took them late.
20. Mr. Lorondeau received a Conditional Discharge on March 27, 2024. During the ensuing reporting period, he continued to experience issues with motivation. He was unemployed throughout this period. He struggled to integrate meaningful activity into his daily routine and continued to spend a great deal of time playing video games. He required motivation from home staff to complete chores, such as cleaning his room; however, once prompted he was able to complete tasks successfully. During this reporting period there were more noted periods of mood instability, typically related to situational or environmental stressors. Areas of stress included family dynamics, budgeting, relationships, and periods of lower mood. Notably, it was reported that he was able to better identify his mood fluctuations and leaned on staff for support as needed. He was also better able to manage and find ways to improve his mood during situations that he found stressful or upsetting. Mr. Lorondeau continued to remain abstinent of substances and denied experiencing cravings, despite a new girlfriend’s cannabis use. No issues were identified in relation to his medication compliance.
Evidence for the Current Reporting Year and at the Hearing
21. Mr. Lorondeau remained at his group home, operated by the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) until October 1, 2025, when he moved to a one-bedroom apartment through the Forensic Supportive Housing Program (FSHOP). This is a private residence operated through St. Leonard’s Community Services under the FSHOP, which provides supervision and support in the community to promote reintegration and also subsidizes a portion of the rent. Dr. Prakash advised the panel that the goal is to eventually facilitate full independence for Mr. Lorondeau without the subsidy, but there is no specific time limit for this.
22. The Hospital Report states that throughout the reporting period, Mr. Lorondeau did not experience any positive symptoms related to his mental illness. These symptoms were managed by his medications and were last observed in 2020. However, negative symptoms, such as amotivation and poor follow-through, remained and fluctuated during the reporting period. At times, Mr. Lorondeau expressed that he was experiencing low mood and presented as flat and less engaged with limited motivation. At other times, he presented as engaged, had good motivation, was actively participating in social outings including attending the YMCA and walking daily, and was actively pursuing employment opportunities with an employment agency (LEADS in St. Thomas).
23. The Hospital Report states Mr. Lorondeau’s diagnoses as: (i) schizoaffective disorder and (ii) substance use disorder (in sustained remission). Until 2024, it was believed that Mr. Lorondeau’s primary psychotic disorder was schizophrenia. However, Dr. Prakash unequivocally stated in his evidence that the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder was now confirmed.
24. When Mr. Lorondeau initially transitioned to independent living at the FSHOP residence, he presented as highly motivated and organized. He structured his daily activities and implemented healthy routines. Within three weeks of the move, however, his motivation and participation in daily activities reportedly decreased dramatically. He struggled with completing his activities of daily living, such as brushing his teeth, showering, doing his laundry, and maintaining cleanliness in his apartment. He was late on four occasions in October and November in reporting the taking of his oral medications. He also quickly became discouraged when he did not find employment, and therefore his motivation for program participation decreased.
25. In August of 2025, the treatment team noticed that Mr. Lorondeau’s stress and anxiety had increased when he was completing his FSHOP housing application. He disclosed that he had been gambling and accessing an online Money Mart for cash advances to support this activity. He had accumulated debt from these cash advances. This caused him stress as he did not have the means to repay this debt without impacting his monthly budget, and he did not want to jeopardize the opportunity to move into independent living. Dr. Prakash advised that Mr. Lorondeau’s gambling has caused concern for the treatment team as his difficulty managing his finances causes him stress. He has cut down on his gambling, and Dr. Prakash advised that he, another treatment team member and the FSHOP worker, in combination, are seeking to assist Mr. Lorondeau with this. In response to a panel member’s question about the origin of the gambling issue, Dr. Prakash said that this came up suddenly during the reporting year and is not considered part of Mr. Lorondeau’s diagnosis. It began with an app on his phone: it is designed to make the customer win at first, and then encourages further gambling.
26. Dr. Prakash stated that Mr. Lorondeau’s stress, anxiety and depression have been evident during the past reporting year. In addition to the financial issues, Mr. Lorondeau experiences relational conflict. His stepfather came to live with him, resulting in issues with Mr. Lorondeau’s grandmother, who has consistently been his strongest social support. As of the time of the hearing, Mr. Lorondeau did not wish to communicate with his grandmother. He is considered as the peacemaker within the family, and the setting of healthy boundaries is an area in which he needs help and support.
27. Part of the treatment team’s ongoing work with Mr. Lorondeau is his medication. The Hospital Report notes that this has not yet been optimized. Dr. Prakash explained that he has recently added cariprazine (an antipsychotic) and atomoxetine (normally an ADHD medication) to Mr. Lorondeau’s regimen in an attempt to decrease the negative symptoms of his illness. In the coming months, he will assess the impact of these medications.
28. Dr. Prakash advised that Mr. Lorondeau is generally very cooperative, pleasant, agreeable, and has a good relationship with the treatment team as well as with his FSHOP worker, who has a good comprehension of his needs. The difficulty is his follow up on recommendations from his professional supports. Mr. Lorondeau himself acknowledged requiring prompting, stating during the current reporting year that, "When I'm not told what to do, I do nothing." That said, Mr. Lorondeau wants to be successful and wishes to maintain his ability to live independently.
29. The Hospital Report stated that Mr. Lorondeau has insight into the index offences, including an understanding and appreciation of the factors that led to them (including that he was suffering from mental illness, was not taking medication, and was using substances). His insight into his illness was considered to be developing, as he was gaining greater insight into how his symptoms directly impacted him. Mr. Lorondeau had good insight into his need for treatment. He appreciated his medications and was adherent to them. He obtained his medications independently from a local pharmacy.
30. Mr. Lorondeau reportedly continued to have good insight into his future risk of violence, including the impact of substance use, negative peer groups, and symptom relapse. His protective factors helped safeguard him when he noticed a change in his mood or feeling stressed. For example, he called his family to speak to them for support and advice, implemented coping strategies, or reached out to staff for support and reassurance. He understood the impact that substance use had on his mental health stability. All his toxicology screens were negative for substances and Mr. Lorondeau denied cravings for substances. He could identify that a relapse would jeopardize his mental health stability. As of the hearing date, he has been abstinent for approximately four years.
31. Mr. Lorondeau is capable of consenting to his psychiatric treatment and of managing his finances. Asked by his counsel whether thought had been given to getting the Public Guardian and Trustee involved in Mr. Lorondeau’s financial challenges, Dr. Prakash said that because Mr. Lorondeau is financially capable, the treatment team’s emphasis is on helping him with his planning and budgeting. Dr. Prakash agreed that Mr. Lorondeau’s outstanding debt arising from his gambling difficulties was down to approximately $230.00 as of the hearing date.
32. Dr. Prakash confirmed that Mr. Lorondeau does not currently qualify for Developmental Services Ontario (DSO) assistance. A panel member followed up on this by noting that in 2018 the treatment team queried the possibility of a learning disability and that in 2024 his Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score was below the cutoff for normal intellectual functioning. Asked whether the team had considered conducting a full cognitive assessment with a view to qualifying Mr. Lorondeau for DSO assistance, Dr. Prakash agreed that this may be worth a closer examination before moving him to the care of an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team.
33. Dr. Prakash described the “overlap” between the Forensic Outreach team and the FSHOP team in Mr. Lorondeau’s care. He stated that the FSHOP worker has a very important role, and that the case manager on the Outreach team plays a coordinating role between the two services. Dr. Prakash envisioned that slowly, FSHOP would become the main treatment provider, and that for some time, there would be three-way coordination among the Forensic Outreach Team, FSHOP, and the ACT team as Mr. Lorondeau moves closer to being ready to be discharged from the forensic system.
34. A panel member asked Dr. Prakash about whether the treatment team is seeking to assist Mr. Lorondeau in his relationship with his girlfriend. The doctor replied that this is on the team’s “radar” as Mr. Lorondeau has “boundary” issues in relation to the frequency with which the girlfriend can be at his apartment. Dr. Prakash said that the team intends to provide more support if the relationship endures.
35. Dr. Prakash was asked by a panel member about the continuing necessity for various terms in the previous Disposition. With respect to the “consent to treatment” clause, Dr. Prakash unequivocally stated that in his opinion, this was necessary because Mr. Lorondeau occasionally needs reminders as a supplement to his motivation to continue his medication. Dr. Prakash also believed that the requirement to submit samples for testing for substances was necessary and opined that this would be needed until Mr. Lorondeau’s care was transitioned to an ACT team.
36. Dr. Prakash was also asked for his opinion concerning the need for the firearms and other weapons prohibition in the Disposition. He stated that he had no difficulty with the removal of this clause, stating that this had not been a problem for a long time.
37. No further evidence was led following the questioning of Dr. Prakash. In response to the panel’s questions concerning some specific terms of the existing Disposition, counsel for the Hospital clarified that its position was that there was no longer a basis for the weapons prohibition. Counsel for the Attorney General observed that the sentences for the 2019 assault conviction included a weapons prohibition but had no information as to its duration. For his part, counsel for Mr. Lorondeau left the matter of the need for a weapons prohibition to the Board but stated that he supported the Hospital’s position in this regard. He also confirmed that Mr. Lorondeau’s continuing consent to a treatment clause in the Disposition formed part of the joint submission.
Analysis and Conclusions
38. Dealing first with the matter of “significant threat”, the panel has no difficulty accepting the parties’ joint position in this regard and finds independently that Mr. Lorondeau represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from a serious mental disorder. While the precise diagnosis of his mental illness has changed in the last two years, that change does not diminish its seriousness. While unwell and untreated, Mr. Lorondeau committed a serious offence of interpersonal violence that could well have had lethal consequences but for the timely intervention of others. Even after commencing treatment with antipsychotic medication, he continued to be symptomatic and violent until he began treatment with clozapine, an oral antipsychotic, in late 2018. While his treatment has been effective in controlling his positive symptoms and he has not been physically aggressive in several years, Mr. Lorondeau continues to experience negative symptoms which Dr. Prakash is actively attempting to treat through recent medication changes. Those negative symptoms impede Mr. Lorondeau’s ability to follow through with recommendations from his professional supports that are aimed at strengthening his ability to reintegrate into the community. In addition, Mr. Lorondeau is vulnerable to stress, anxiety and depression. He requires the support of his forensic outreach team to help manage his stressors.
39. Mr. Lorondeau has significant strengths. He appears to have a strong therapeutic relationship with his current professional support team. He is adherent (with occasional prompting) to his medication regimen and is noted as having either good or developing insight across the various domains, including his violence risk. Notably, he has remained abstinent of intoxicating substances for several years, including the past reporting year during which he was not subject to an abstinence requirement in his Disposition. His violence risk profile has shown a gradual lowering of his risk over the last several years. Nevertheless, the panel finds itself in agreement with the risk scenario in the Hospital Report, which states:
“Absent his current level of supervision and any lesser disposition, Mr. Lorondeau would not be able to manage stressors as his coping strategies have not been fully developed. He would then decompensate and use substances which would increase his risk. He would then lose insight and fall away from his medication.”
40. The foregoing scenario acquires particular significance when one considers the critical role of clozapine in controlling the active symptoms of Mr. Lorondeau’s illness, maintaining his relative stability, and preventing a resurgence of violent behaviour that, as in the past, could result in serious physical and psychological harm. Accordingly, Mr. Lorondeau continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
41. Turning to the matter of disposition, the panel is satisfied that Mr. Lorondeau’s risk can be safely managed under the terms of a Conditional Discharge. With the minor alteration mentioned at the outset of these Reasons and the removal of the prohibition on the possession of firearms, ammunition or other offensive weapons, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm, the Disposition is essentially unchanged from that which governed during the previous reporting period. Based upon the opinion of Dr. Prakash, which the panel accepts, the latter prohibition is not necessary at this time.
42. Prior to concluding these Reasons, the panel would make the following observation. Based on Dr. Prakash’s evidence, the treatment team will explore the desirability of a cognitive assessment to determine Mr. Lorondeau’s eligibility for DSO supports. If indeed such supports become available, they may provide helpful ongoing support for Mr. Lorondeau’s other needs as he continues his trajectory toward community reintegration.
43. In approaching this matter, the panel has considered the evidence through the lens of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The panel wishes to commend Mr. Lorondeau on his progress to date, and particularly his adherence to his medication, his commitment to abstinence form substances, and his cooperative attitude in relation to those who are seeking to support him both professionally and personally. It is hoped that his positive trajectory will continue through the year ahead.
DATED this 15^th^ day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Eric Siebenmorgen
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board